JUDGMENT : The petitioner is presently challenging by means of the present writ petition, the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun dated 09.03.2020, which has been passed under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993. 2. The proceedings in fact started on an application moved under Section 19 of the Act by the Financial Institution i.e. the Punjab National Bank. 3. As per the case of the applicant/petitioner before the DRT, Lucknow, the respondent who had taken several loans from the applicant Bank was unable to maintain a financial discipline and subsequently has become a defaulter. His account was declared as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) way back on 12.11.2012. Thereafter recovery proceedings were initiated and the Bank ultimately moved an application under Section 19 of the Act. 4. Subsequently after the establishment of the Debts Recovery Tribunal for Uttarakhand in Dehradun, the matter was transferred from DRT, Lucknow to DRT, Dehradun. The petitioner was given proper notice and the proceedings commenced at Dehradun at 25.01.2019. The application of the Bank was ultimately allowed and the order dated 09.03.2020 was passed asking the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,09,51,204/- (Rupees One Crore Nine Lakh Fifty One Thousand Two Hundred Four only). 5. This order dated 09.03.2020 has been challenged before this Court by means of the present writ petition. 6. No satisfactory reply has come from the side of the petitioner as to why he has not availed the statutory remedy under Section 20 of the Act by filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad. 7. Under Section 20 of the Act, a statutory appeal is provided against any order passed under Section 19 of the Act, including the order impugned in the present writ petition. The only explanation given by the counsel for the petitioner Mr. Dhruv Dwivedi before this Court is that there were many procedural lapses on the part of the DRT, Dehradun. He also submits that since there were procedural lapses, it amounts to violation of natural justice and fair play and therefore alternative remedy may not be an absolute bar in the present case. 8. This argument of the petitioner is totally misconceived. He also submits that since there were procedural lapses, it amounts to violation of natural justice and fair play and therefore alternative remedy may not be an absolute bar in the present case. 8. This argument of the petitioner is totally misconceived. All the arguments raised by the petitioner before this Court, including the argument as regarding procedural lapses on the part of the DRT, as alleged, can be looked into by the Appellate Tribunal in its appellate jurisdiction. 9. It has not been the case of the petitioner that he is presently handicapped in any manner in approaching the Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad under the present circumstances of COVID-19 pandemic. He can very well file an application before the Appellate Tribunal in the manner in which he has filed the writ petition before this Court. 10. The real reason for not filing the appeal before the Appellate Court, appears to be that the appellant will have to deposit 50% of the amount before the Tribunal. That, however, cannot be a reason to bypass the statutory proceedings. 11. In view thereof, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.